Unpleasant. Is this what the creators were going for?
Derivative. Ugly. Vulgar. Cliched. Who has other words to describe "F is for Family?"
What a loathsome show.
For every animal bought, a shelter animal dies.
If you knew Bill Burr's humour and persona as a comedian then you would have anticipated, expected and adored exactly what you saw.
You weren't a fan, obviously, which is your fair opinion. It is a little lost thou on a message board frequented by his fans.
I am a fan of Bill Burr stand-up, but I did not like this show. What works in one format does not necessarily work in other.
shareAgreed. This doesn’t work as even dark comedy. They tried to take Family Guy up another level of offensiveness, but add no new insights.
shareFuck off! I got work to do.
shareYes, this show does remind me of 'King of the Hill' - another show where a famous and wealthy creator of other things decided a 'cartoon format' would work for him, but after watching pretty much every episode (besides some sports-themed ones, of which there are WAY too many), I can conclude the end result is lukewarm and lackluster at best, boring, predictable, long-winded and asinine (yes, I said it) at worst.
KotH doesn't 'dare' enough - it does poke at 'serious topics', but then shies away from really making a statement or taking a stand, as if they don't want to ACTUALLY offend anyone, so everything always returns to the safe, wishy-washy, conformist 'non-stance' and next episode has forgotten all about it.
No one ever grows or learns anything, etc.
Now, I have only watched almost two episodes of this particular, weirdly-named show, and so far all I have seen are anachronisms, unsatisfied stories, horrible, jerk characters, modern speech patterns, wrong television sizes compared to what they are supposed to be and wrong kinds of typewriters (square-keyed, tight-keyboard, electric typewriter-looking ones did not exist in the 1970s), and Bill Burr ranting and raving a bit, but not to the point of being funny, and that's about it.
It's like some people have to try 'everything', even though only one thing works for them. Bill Burr is a master of comedy craft when he's on stage. He can make you laugh even if you disagree with him or realize how misandristic and woman-worshipping he is (while supposedly saying some raw truths about them).
However, he is also a helicopter pilot, actor, writer, podcaster and so on, and now a voice actor for (so far) an unfunny, repulsive cartoon that seems to serve no point. It doesn't really seem to work. What works on stage, just doesn't work for a cartoon. Just him voicing an angry dad is not enough, it's not particularly funny.
Every time he is interviewed about this part, he reverts back to his material as well.
So this show seems to be like King of the Hill in the sense that Mike Judge didn't seem to have a particularly poignant reason or a deep message for creating that particular cartoon - he just wanted to try animation.
Bill Burr, I guess, had a bit of a reason for voicing this angry dad, because he could channel his own father. However, so far, EVERY time he has done it on stage, he has been amazingly funny, but any second so far on this show, he has only been pretty 'meh', quite boring, and not funny at all.
I guess 'talking about your father' is different than 'trying to act like your father' - I don't know, but this show just doesn't really work.
There's the additional problem of 'comparing' - there HAVE already been pretty good shows doing pretty much anything and everything imaginable for a cartoon show, whether it's the story, actions, jokes, surprises, structural stuff and so on. Is there anything this show can do to really keep you interested, when you feel like you have seen it all already, because you have watched The Simpsons, Family Guy, South Park, King of the Hill and the list goes on...? I mean, what can this show offer that those shows haven't already?
It's like playing a game on Atari ST ... you can like the game, it can be pretty good, but you just KNOW there's a version of that game that looks, plays and sounds better, plus has better atmosphere to it. Very often that other version is found on the Amiga side, sometimes in the of coin-up Arcade games, other times even the humble Commodore 64 or even Atari 800 (or '8-bit', as they call it).
So watching this, you get a similar feeling, you start itching to watch something that did a similar thing, but much better - whether that's The Simpsons, South Park, Family Guy or something else is up to you, but it's easy to get that uneasy feeling while watching this, isn't it?
Maybe we can do a test - imagine Frank was voiced by some unknown. Would you STILL watch this? Be honest.
I happened to grow up with someone who wrote/ produced this show and I wanted to see it. That okay with you?
For every animal bought, a shelter animal dies.
No need to be defensive. I didn't attack your opinion, in fact the exact opposite. More to my point that has seemed to have ruffled your feathers, why would you seek out a public forum to trash the work of someone in your life to a bunch of strangers who are likely here because they enjoyed it?
I can't for the life of me understand why someone would waste their time seeking a platform to trash something someone else worked really hard on. The self importance of that act is just mind numbing.
Are you familiar with the word "critique?"
For every animal bought, a shelter animal dies.
If Santa was real you wouldn't get any gifts this year.
I'm fine with that. I don't need anything and think rampant consumerism is destroying the planet.
For every animal bought, a shelter animal dies.
Hahahahahahaha enough said. I know exactly who I'm talking to.
Merry Christmas you miserable douche
Miserable? Don't you mean thoughtful? http://upliftconnect.com/conscious-consumerism/
For every animal bought, a shelter animal dies.
Crybaby.
Logan, buddy. It's me, Deadpool! I shot youuuuuu....
Insufferable? Is that what you were going for?
shareIf God were real, you might go to heaven when you die, or you might go to hell... but he's not real, as anyone with a brain can tell you, so you'll just rot in the ground and feed the maggots and worms. :)
why would you seek out a public forum to trash the work of someone in your life to a bunch of strangers who are likely here because they enjoyed it?
Feels like he may be a little jealous of his "buddy's" success. At least that's how it comes off. If someone I knew was doing something this big I would go into it wanting to like it, not hate it (like the OP seems to have done). share
"..why would you seek out a public forum to trash the work of someone in your life to a bunch of strangers who are likely here because they enjoyed it?"
Why would you use such weird language, as in trying to make 'honest, critical forum post' sound like some kind of secret ops mission that some nutcase goes on after dark, hiding camouflaged in the bushes to SEEK someone frantically?
Can't a forum post be just someone sitting comfortably on a chair, typing away into the night, while calmly sipping some iced tea and writing a thought that came to their head? Does it have to be SEEKING?
Also, what kind of a friend can't handle honest opinions? I think it's commendable and encouraging to tell your friends what they might have done better when they work on something and the result is crappy. If you do something lousy, regardless of the amount of effort, wouldn't you want to KNOW it's lousy, instead of living in illusions?
So why would YOU be so 'attackive' (opposite of 'defensive' doesn't really exist, does it? I mean, I could say 'offensive', but that has a completely different meaning now) over someone just writing their thoughts of the show?
We can all wonder all kinds of things, and no TV cartoon is above criticism, even if you know the makers of it. Why should it be otherwise? We could wonder many things about this show, about almost anyone's comments here.. but the point of a board/forum like this is for people to talk and converse about these movies, TV shows and even cartoons. Why would you wonder about why someone would come to a forum to 'trash' (quite opinionated and 'attackive' language from someone that claims to not attack, and for trying to shame someone on being 'defensive') a show, when they simply use the board for its intended purpose?
It must be nice for that particular writer to have 'grown up' with the type of 'friend' who would be willing to openly trash something they worked very hard on.
You sound like a class act.
Who needs enemies, right?
shareGuys like us wouldn't understand.. we aren't ahead of the curve so to speak.
I made a joke how this person wouldn't get Christmas presents based on how well they treat their friend and I got response denouncing the commercialism of buying presents.
It must be nice for that particular writer to have 'grown up' with the type of 'friend' who would be willing to openly trash something they worked very hard on.
That was my first thought also. share
"If you knew (truncated), then you would have (snip) adored"
I added proper punctuation and removed some irrelevant things to emphasize what you said.
So knowledge = adoration?
If you knew Bill Burr, you would have ADORED grotesqueness and the clichés of the show? I wish I could summon Mr. Spock here to tell how much logic your claim has. You can be a fan of someone, but you don't have to lose all logic while trying to defend a show they are a voice actor in.
Bill can be funny and you can know his 'persona' (whatever that means in this context) without automatically adoring a cartoon that he just happens to be one of the voice actors of. I mean, if you find some Bill's joke funny, does that translate to ADORING this cartoon showing a man being decapitated by a propeller? How does that work?
That's the problem with fandom, when push comes to shove, logic flies out the window and you get the craziest statements that make no sense whatsoever.